Microsoft should be spending its billions generating new demand, not trying to take its 90% market share to 92.5%. Where are the golden oldies, like voice recognition, speech synthesis, handwriting recognition, not to mention all the crazy stuff that no-one's dreamed up yet? Where are the VR interfaces, massive dataset visualisers, database filesystems, all built to smash my machine into whimpering shards and only run on XP(tm)?
This would require innovation.
all bound for mu-mu land
on
XML for Ancients
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"justified.dtd" >
The cuneiforms are justified and ancient.
and well formed.
XML is gonna rock you.
Re:Blech. Most of them are pretty bad.
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There is Eclipse, which I've never used, but it got good reviews from Netbeans users (I have used Netbeans). It appears promising as it as a natively implemented GUI (SWT), and a completely modular design. It also has refactoring and other neat stuff check out this recent article.
I would think that you can use this citation to argue that copyrights, while supposed to be limited in scope, are now becoming de facto limitless, and thus are not 'for limited times'.
This is a gross misread of that passage, and your omissions cause the distinction between the concepts of "copyright" and "trade secrets" to blur. The court later states
"Both the First Amendment and the Copyright Act are rooted in the United States Constitution, but the UTSA lacks any constitutional basis."
keeping in mind that the court has outlined its reasons for designating DeCSS as "pure speech", check this out. it gets better...
"In the case of a prior restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is substantially higher [than for an ordinary preliminary injunction]: publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint, even faced with the competing interest of national security or the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial."
and finally
"DVDCCA's statutory right to protect its economically valuable trade secret is not an interest that is "more fundamental" than the First Amendment right to freedom of speech or even on equal footing with the national security interests and other vital governmental interests that have previously been found insufficient to justify a prior restraint. Our respect for the Legislature and its enactment of the UTSA cannot displace our duty to safeguard the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse the preliminary injunction."
In actuality, the court was very clear on the difference between copyright and trade secrets, especially when it comes to an injunction that suppresses First Amendment rights. Basically, DVDCCA's statutory right to keep trade secrets cannot supercede Bunson's Constitutional right to free speech, at least not before the case has been decided.
Obviously, Microsoft's licensing scheme is far superior. With them, you pay throughout the short-term, the forseeable future, and even the long run. Basically, you'll constantly pay for your Operating System as well as any "service" you decide you need (Word, Excel). Sounds less like a utility and more like protection money.
what's the big deal with these compiled/interpreted arguments? Can't you compile java source if you want, no JVM required? Isn't it also true that most performance problems are located in a very small portion of the code, but it's extremely difficult to figure out where (ahead of time)? So why not just write it all in java and then mix 'n' match interpreted java, compiled java, FORTRAN, Guile, or whatever?
In my experience, the actual knowledge most employees have of Windows is pretty shallow. Switching them to a good Linux-based office suite is no more costly or difficult than switching them to a new release of MS Office.
Their knowledge of Windows may be fairly shallow, but they'll often be accustomed to doing things in windows that won't work on other OSes. That's the funny thing about those 10 million features that nobody uses-- everybody uses a few, but they're different ones. Sure, there might be a kpart or something that does the same thing, but do you really want your employees out downloading apps to fit their idiosyncracies? Security?
Linux office suites import and export the parts of MS Office documents that you care about: content and formatting. If a vendor sends you documents containing executable code, you should return them unopened or say that they didn't make it through your virus filter.
You use the term "vendor". How about "client"? Before you write these things, read them back to yourself with your best imitation of the comic shop owner from the Simpsons.
I don't think that's necessarily realistic at all. A mixed Windows/Linux setup incurs a lot of unnecessary costs for the Windows support and the Windows software licenses. The fact that Microsoft will, one way or another, try to force a site license on you also makes that undesirable.
You're going to end up with Windows boxes. You will. Maybe someone needs Photoshop. Or Powerpoint. Or Flash. Or IIS (!). All of your points about the cost of this are correct, my point was simply that it's an unavoidable reality. Other posts have commented that only one windows box would be required, which is a good solution if you want everyone to fight over one computer.
Scheduling, calendaring, data analysis, order fulfillment, business intelligence, and all that are "specialized situations". It is only the Windows mentality that has people dump a bunch of low-quality MS Office programs and macros on their highly-paid employees' desks and say "here, try to get your work done with this, and become a system administrator for your own machine".
It is only the linux mentality that has people write beta quality software and call it a revolution. Outlook is everywhere because it works. It sure helps me remember my meetings. Face it, some M$ software is really good, and has been through more than 10 years of development. Bugzilla isn't gonna make up that much ground.
In case you were wondering, I'm not some windows nut. I have to use it at work, but at home it's MacOS, Solaris, and Yellow Dog. Where's Brett Glass when you need him? I know he would back me up.:)
This article doesn't mention that it costs money to train people to use Unix. It doesn't have anything to do with how smart they are, they'll ay least need time to adjust. If you've ever read an ad in the newspaper looking for a secretary, you know that MS Office is pretty much the prerequisite. All of your employees know how to use Windows coming in, not so for Unix. Retraining people costs money.
This article seeks to use "average" scenarios to make its point. I would say that Unix would be a lot more beneficial in specialized situations, where employees use a lot of custom or specialized software (e.g. POS stations, industrial settings). They're going to have to learn anyway, so why not have them learn it on a cheaper, more stable platform?
In the college scenario, the article takes no account that many colleges make these decisions based on what the students use. Usually, that's Windows. Sometimes Mac. Almost never *nix.
In the corporate scenario, no mention is made of the need to share files with other companies. This requires Windows. No corporation really cares about the evils of closed file formats until they get in the way. Besides, how are any pitches going to be made without PowerPoint?:)
To be realistic, both situations should have compared the cost of a Windows setup vs. a mixed Unix/Windows setup, since that's how it work in the real world.
Have you ever noticed how easy is it is to steal Adobe and Macromedia products? A $600 dollar program could easily incorporate a hardware dongle, making it far more difficult to pirate. Some examples of this are Quark Xpress 4.0 and Cubase. Adobe and MM want and expect students to pirate their software. It builds the base of professionals trained in their use. I'm sure they love the fact that it's difficult to get a BFA without knowing Photoshop these days. A professional or business using pirated software is a different matter altogether. They like this setup because when someone calls in a freelancer (like myself), the worker expects the necessary Adobe and MM products to be there. Sometimes this entails buying another license or whatever, but these costs are all billed to the client in one form or another. What Adobe and MM don't appreciate is companies padding their margins by using pirated software. Anyway, all of their products phone the mothership on startup, and very few users of these products know much about firewalling.
Your analogy to snap-on is inaccurate as well, because a home user can buy a decent set of lifetime-warranty tools for like $100 rather than be forced to spend $10000 on the same set of snap-on tools. To the home user, this toolset will have the exact same functionality. The only benefit snap-on offers is their service guarantees, which the average home user does not need.
AFAIK, there isn't a product that offers the exact same functionality of Photoshop for less than 1/10 of the price.
Snap-on tools are expensive because they're made to be used in a professional workflow. Same with photoshop. I can't think of many things I need to do at home that couldn't be done with Photo Deluxe, Fireworks, or the GIMP. Photoshop costs money because of its color management, automation, and other labor saving functions. Many of its features are unnecessary if you only touch-up one image a week. But if you do it every day, the time starts to add up. Adobe's own marketing clouds the issue, since they market Photoshop for web imaging, which is a small concern compared to its major use, print work. No one in print would use anything else, ever. No need to market it heavily. Its prepress features are top notch and unparalleled. Ask yourself, what "home" user needs prepress features?
Yeah whatever. The reality for the professional is that you code for every browser the client pays for, and try to make everthing validate too. If the client is using Netscape 4.7 and your site is broken, it's your fault. Sometimes you'll get clients that specify that the site should work for everything, and sometimes they're only worried about IE 6. The fact is, standards compliance in concert with cross-browser compatibility costs money, and not everyone is willing to pay.
Daniel Quinn's column assumes that the United States will attempt to wage "humanitarian warfare", a particularly nonsensical modern notion. You know the ideas-- attacking only military targets, trying not to kill civilians. This never works, and it's possible that it's never happened anywhere other than in the US Government's propaganda.
The column by William O. Beeman is laughable. The column purports to give historical context to Mideast grievances with the West, yet somehow fails to mention the creation of Israel. The article skips from post WWI directly to the Cold War. Ridiculous.
For an historical account of effectiveness against the school of thought that Beeman correctly attributes to al-Afghani, we can look to Hafez al-Assad, the deceased leader of Syria. Assad belonged to a religion called Alawism (sp?) that traditional muslims consider heretical, and are a minority in Syria to Sunni muslims. Thus he faced frequent opposition from Sunni factions, until 1982 when he completely leveled a city called Hama that harbored the revolutionaries. He killed everyone. Women, children, elderly. After that, there were far fewer problems.
I'm not advocating that kind of action, I'm just citing it to prove that military action can be effective against this kind of enemy. You just can't pretend that you're not going to kill innocent people. So if you scream for vengeance, do so with an accurate picture of the kind of vengeance that will be required.
In the U.S., we have an unfortunate focus on the vocational utility of higher education. I understand that this may be necessary, since many students take on crushing debt to complete their studies. On the other hand, I believe that the best place to learn how to work is work. I'm confused that the poster thinks he's getting too general an education when he's taking exclusively finance and management courses. It's good to have a focus for research that interests you, no need to wait for grad school. But why take only courses that apply to what you think you want to do when you're ~20 years old?
Wouldn't it make more sense to teach things that will help students early in their careers, like technical skills and other trade/foundation skills that are often required of entry-level, non-management employees?
No. Go get a job doing what you want to do. Do it right now. Get a job doing something related for the school. Do IT work for a charity. Just don't expect school to make you a dream employee. Expect it to teach you how to think. Take some physics, some math, some biology. Given your interest in management, maybe a little Shakespeare, Homer, or Sun Tzu would be good.:)
Do companies really want me to spend more time diagramming a program than I need to program it in the first place? (What about just documenting the code?)
There's a parable about this one, can't remember it, but the gist is that you should spend way more time planning than you probably do. It might not seem practical for small CS projects, but it becomes exponentially more useful as projects get bigger. So you need to know how to do it, unless you want to spend the rest of your life writing shell scripts for intranets.:)
Sorry, there's no IDE for linux. You'll just have to emulate or switch back and forth. Maybe you'll have better luck once OS X versions of the Flash and Adobe LiveMotion authoring tools are released. It might become cost effective for them to port to linux once they've developed an OS X app.
For a good summary of the situation, check out OpenSWF.
Actually, there are more servers running IIS than there are Apache. Not by much, but a little. It's confusing, because there are many more domains running Apache. Those rackmount colo shared server things are almost always linux. I saw a survey from netcraft on this pretty recently. I would link it if I knew where to find it.
As a side note, Gartner must be moving from IIS, since their web server is down right now.
Please post the results of your test. I've been wondering if you could run Forte on OS X. If not, I guess I'll be buying a red hat box instead of the G4 (5?) that I want.
Not only is php-nuke open source, it's GPLed as well. Maybe you should read the GPL again. Modifying existing and borrowing from existing GPL programs is what it's all about. No doubt thatware did the same for theirs.
Egypt (a one time opponent of Israel) routinely receives the same degree of aid that Israel does, and in the last decade Egypt has more than once been the single largest recipient of US aid. The reasoning is simple - as the only stable Arabic democracy, the status of Egypt is key to the Middle East, and the US wishes to keep it from being turned into an Islamic state.
Actually, the amount of aid Egypt receives stems from agreements made as part of the Camp David Accords. Basically, we paid them off, so they would leave Israel alone, and Israel would return the Sinai to Egypt.
These are a matter of historical record, they are not subject to your opinion.
Who taught you that the "historical record" is not subject to opinion? Even a little research into the history of history will tell you that's a pretty naive view. Just read any history or geography textbook that's more than thirty years old. And concerning the history of Israel itself, just try to find impartial information on the events that surrounded it's creation. It's pretty hard.
If you look at the tenor of debate in the Israeli/Palestinian debate, the US was taking a firm middle ground between both parties.
uh, hmm, whuh... I don't think you've done much study on the affairs of Israel. The bottom line is that the U.N. (read U.S. and U.K.) created the State of Israel and to this day they receive more aid from the U.S. than any other country by far. To quote the State Department's website:
Commitment to Israel's security and well-being has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Israel's creation in 1948, in which the United States played a key supporting role. Israel and the United States are bound closely by historic and cultural ties as well as by mutual interests. Continuing U.S. economic and security assistance to Israel acknowledges these ties and signals U.S. commitment.
Aside from the creation of Israel, the U.S. and the U.K. drew up borders for a number of other States in the region, many of which had no cultural or historical basis, i.e. Jordan or Kuwait. Sometimes, they would even invent a monarchy or aristocracy so that the newly minted nations could be more easily controlled. Standing up for democracy... right.
There's an interesting article from the Independent, a British newspaper, on conditions in Afghanistan that no amount of military prowess will change. Basically, anyone we send over there has a good chance of stepping on a mine.
It's interesting that you bring up Desert Storm as if it had nothing to do with the WTC tragedy. We may have the best soldiers, the best weapons, and the smartist scientists on our side. But how does continuing the foreign policy that made people hate Americans so much prevent this from happening in the future? I am shocked that people seem so ready to give up civil liberties yet are unwilling to consider a drastic change in foreign policy. The nations of the Middle East have seen through our "divide and conquer" policy agenda. It has to change. It's not about "good" vs. "evil", it's more like our interests vs. anyone else's.
So we can blither blather on about Navy SEALS, M-1 tanks, Delta Force, etc., but the fact is none of that shit will change the way other countries feel about us. Then again, that's not something I would expect a bunch of nerds with no friends to understand. So I guess you guys should get to work on Cave Sonar Linux or something.
They also draw heavily on work that predates widespread internet usage, like the stuff this guy wrote. Your post and Freenet both owe him quite a bit. Besides, no "creative/original" idea will work if improperly implemented, which is, like, the hard part. And the implementation would seem to be what they are addressing.
Slashdot Mirror
"justified.dtd" >
The cuneiforms are justified and ancient.
and well formed.
XML is gonna rock you.
There is Eclipse, which I've never used, but it got good reviews from Netbeans users (I have used Netbeans). It appears promising as it as a natively implemented GUI (SWT), and a completely modular design. It also has refactoring and other neat stuff check out this recent article.
You could write it in VB if you wanted. Not that you would want to.
It may be old news, but it provides ample opportunity for overclocking weenies to pretend that they would know what to do with an Alpha.
" you will pay in the long run"
Obviously, Microsoft's licensing scheme is far superior. With them, you pay throughout the short-term, the forseeable future, and even the long run. Basically, you'll constantly pay for your Operating System as well as any "service" you decide you need (Word, Excel). Sounds less like a utility and more like protection money.
what's the big deal with these compiled/interpreted arguments? Can't you compile java source if you want, no JVM required? Isn't it also true that most performance problems are located in a very small portion of the code, but it's extremely difficult to figure out where (ahead of time)? So why not just write it all in java and then mix 'n' match interpreted java, compiled java, FORTRAN, Guile, or whatever?
In my experience, the actual knowledge most employees have of Windows is pretty shallow. Switching them to a good Linux-based office suite is no more costly or difficult than switching them to a new release of MS Office.
:)
Their knowledge of Windows may be fairly shallow, but they'll often be accustomed to doing things in windows that won't work on other OSes. That's the funny thing about those 10 million features that nobody uses-- everybody uses a few, but they're different ones. Sure, there might be a kpart or something that does the same thing, but do you really want your employees out downloading apps to fit their idiosyncracies? Security?
Linux office suites import and export the parts of MS Office documents that you care about: content and formatting. If a vendor sends you documents containing executable code, you should return them unopened or say that they didn't make it through your virus filter.
You use the term "vendor". How about "client"? Before you write these things, read them back to yourself with your best imitation of the comic shop owner from the Simpsons.
I don't think that's necessarily realistic at all. A mixed Windows/Linux setup incurs a lot of unnecessary costs for the Windows support and the Windows software licenses. The fact that Microsoft will, one way or another, try to force a site license on you also makes that undesirable.
You're going to end up with Windows boxes. You will. Maybe someone needs Photoshop. Or Powerpoint. Or Flash. Or IIS (!). All of your points about the cost of this are correct, my point was simply that it's an unavoidable reality. Other posts have commented that only one windows box would be required, which is a good solution if you want everyone to fight over one computer.
Scheduling, calendaring, data analysis, order fulfillment, business intelligence, and all that are "specialized situations". It is only the Windows mentality that has people dump a bunch of low-quality MS Office programs and macros on their highly-paid employees' desks and say "here, try to get your work done with this, and become a system administrator for your own machine".
It is only the linux mentality that has people write beta quality software and call it a revolution. Outlook is everywhere because it works. It sure helps me remember my meetings. Face it, some M$ software is really good, and has been through more than 10 years of development. Bugzilla isn't gonna make up that much ground.
In case you were wondering, I'm not some windows nut. I have to use it at work, but at home it's MacOS, Solaris, and Yellow Dog. Where's Brett Glass when you need him? I know he would back me up.
This article doesn't mention that it costs money to train people to use Unix. It doesn't have anything to do with how smart they are, they'll ay least need time to adjust. If you've ever read an ad in the newspaper looking for a secretary, you know that MS Office is pretty much the prerequisite. All of your employees know how to use Windows coming in, not so for Unix. Retraining people costs money.
:)
This article seeks to use "average" scenarios to make its point. I would say that Unix would be a lot more beneficial in specialized situations, where employees use a lot of custom or specialized software (e.g. POS stations, industrial settings). They're going to have to learn anyway, so why not have them learn it on a cheaper, more stable platform?
In the college scenario, the article takes no account that many colleges make these decisions based on what the students use. Usually, that's Windows. Sometimes Mac. Almost never *nix.
In the corporate scenario, no mention is made of the need to share files with other companies. This requires Windows. No corporation really cares about the evils of closed file formats until they get in the way. Besides, how are any pitches going to be made without PowerPoint?
To be realistic, both situations should have compared the cost of a Windows setup vs. a mixed Unix/Windows setup, since that's how it work in the real world.
Snap-on tools are expensive because they're made to be used in a professional workflow. Same with photoshop. I can't think of many things I need to do at home that couldn't be done with Photo Deluxe, Fireworks, or the GIMP. Photoshop costs money because of its color management, automation, and other labor saving functions. Many of its features are unnecessary if you only touch-up one image a week. But if you do it every day, the time starts to add up. Adobe's own marketing clouds the issue, since they market Photoshop for web imaging, which is a small concern compared to its major use, print work. No one in print would use anything else, ever. No need to market it heavily. Its prepress features are top notch and unparalleled. Ask yourself, what "home" user needs prepress features?
Yeah whatever. The reality for the professional is that you code for every browser the client pays for, and try to make everthing validate too. If the client is using Netscape 4.7 and your site is broken, it's your fault. Sometimes you'll get clients that specify that the site should work for everything, and sometimes they're only worried about IE 6. The fact is, standards compliance in concert with cross-browser compatibility costs money, and not everyone is willing to pay.
There's one on ebay right now at $400, ending tomorrow.
Daniel Quinn's column assumes that the United States will attempt to wage "humanitarian warfare", a particularly nonsensical modern notion. You know the ideas-- attacking only military targets, trying not to kill civilians. This never works, and it's possible that it's never happened anywhere other than in the US Government's propaganda.
The column by William O. Beeman is laughable. The column purports to give historical context to Mideast grievances with the West, yet somehow fails to mention the creation of Israel. The article skips from post WWI directly to the Cold War. Ridiculous.
For an historical account of effectiveness against the school of thought that Beeman correctly attributes to al-Afghani, we can look to Hafez al-Assad, the deceased leader of Syria. Assad belonged to a religion called Alawism (sp?) that traditional muslims consider heretical, and are a minority in Syria to Sunni muslims. Thus he faced frequent opposition from Sunni factions, until 1982 when he completely leveled a city called Hama that harbored the revolutionaries. He killed everyone. Women, children, elderly. After that, there were far fewer problems.
I'm not advocating that kind of action, I'm just citing it to prove that military action can be effective against this kind of enemy. You just can't pretend that you're not going to kill innocent people. So if you scream for vengeance, do so with an accurate picture of the kind of vengeance that will be required.
I can't imagine that this type of technology didn't exist in newsrooms and other parts of tv networks prior to 1992.
Sorry, there's no IDE for linux. You'll just have to emulate or switch back and forth. Maybe you'll have better luck once OS X versions of the Flash and Adobe LiveMotion authoring tools are released. It might become cost effective for them to port to linux once they've developed an OS X app.
For a good summary of the situation, check out OpenSWF.
As a side note, Gartner must be moving from IIS, since their web server is down right now.
Please post the results of your test. I've been wondering if you could run Forte on OS X. If not, I guess I'll be buying a red hat box instead of the G4 (5?) that I want.
There is a java version of the plugin, but I 've heard it's very unstable and only supports the features of Flash 3 or 4.
These are a matter of historical record, they are not subject to your opinion.
Who taught you that the "historical record" is not subject to opinion? Even a little research into the history of history will tell you that's a pretty naive view. Just read any history or geography textbook that's more than thirty years old. And concerning the history of Israel itself, just try to find impartial information on the events that surrounded it's creation. It's pretty hard.
uh, hmm, whuh... I don't think you've done much study on the affairs of Israel. The bottom line is that the U.N. (read U.S. and U.K.) created the State of Israel and to this day they receive more aid from the U.S. than any other country by far. To quote the State Department's website:
Aside from the creation of Israel, the U.S. and the U.K. drew up borders for a number of other States in the region, many of which had no cultural or historical basis, i.e. Jordan or Kuwait. Sometimes, they would even invent a monarchy or aristocracy so that the newly minted nations could be more easily controlled. Standing up for democracy... right.It's interesting that you bring up Desert Storm as if it had nothing to do with the WTC tragedy. We may have the best soldiers, the best weapons, and the smartist scientists on our side. But how does continuing the foreign policy that made people hate Americans so much prevent this from happening in the future? I am shocked that people seem so ready to give up civil liberties yet are unwilling to consider a drastic change in foreign policy. The nations of the Middle East have seen through our "divide and conquer" policy agenda. It has to change. It's not about "good" vs. "evil", it's more like our interests vs. anyone else's.
So we can blither blather on about Navy SEALS, M-1 tanks, Delta Force, etc., but the fact is none of that shit will change the way other countries feel about us. Then again, that's not something I would expect a bunch of nerds with no friends to understand. So I guess you guys should get to work on Cave Sonar Linux or something.
They also draw heavily on work that predates widespread internet usage, like the stuff this guy wrote. Your post and Freenet both owe him quite a bit. Besides, no "creative/original" idea will work if improperly implemented, which is, like, the hard part. And the implementation would seem to be what they are addressing.